PDA

View Full Version : Obama's COLB ... fake or real?



LWW
03-28-2011, 04:33 AM
Anyone with an interest in the truth needs to read THIS (http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/07/atlas-exclusive.html) analysis of the "PROOF" which dear leader has presented for the adoring consumption of his followers.

llotter
03-28-2011, 08:25 AM
I wonder why the state of Hawaii wouldn't object if there was a claim that one of their documents was fraudulent. I remember an official of that state, in a written statement, indicated that she saw the original documents and they established that The Moron was a natural born citizen. One is left to wonder why those original documents are not made public.

eg8r
03-28-2011, 09:22 AM
Wow, that cat has a lot of time on his hands to perform analysis on something where the outcome will not change anything.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
03-28-2011, 11:14 AM
Odd that this is so old (relatively speaking), and yet the penetrating analysis has seen so little result from this clear proof of fraud in the provided COLB. Right?

Not really. Techdude has received withering and decisive criticism of his analysis, and it's been discredited. That's why nobody talks about this now old attempt at proving fraud.

These links will get you started on knowing WHY his analysis was mistaken, according to some and as is convincing to me. Your mileage may vary:

#
Bad Science: How Not To Do Image Analysis - The Hacker Factor Blog
Aug 4, 2008 ... Obama's Birth Certificate. I have previously written about the smear ... Chapter 1 covers the built-in bias and is exactly what TechDude did ...
http://www.hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?/archives/210-Bad... - Similar
#
Obama birth certificate flap is a flop - Jon Christian Ryter's ...
When I was perusing scores of websites that picked up the Obama birth certificate story, Techdude's bonafides reminded me of an unconstitutional stunt ...
http://www.jonchristianryter.com/Two.../2cworth.080726.html - Cached - Similar
#
The Strata-Sphere » Techdude Produces Another Dud For The Cult Of ...
Aug 5, 2008 ... Forensics specialist Techdude, who has been chipping away at the Obama Birth Certificate mystery for some time, has confirmed that the name ...
strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/5745 - Cached - Similar
#
The Strata-Sphere » Obama Birth Certificate Nonsense
Jul 28, 2008 ... Techdude Produces Another Dud For The Cult Of The COLB ...
strata-sphere.com/blog/.../obama-birth-certificate-nonsense - Cached - Similar
Show more results from strata-sphere.com

#
Expert rebuttal of TechDude's analysis of Obama COLB - Digg
Aug 5, 2008... of the analysis of Senator Obama's birth certificate by anonymous ... Dr Krawetz shows how TechDude's analysis combines a selective bias ...
digg.com/.../Expert_rebuttal_of_TechDude_s_analysis_of_Obama_CO LB - Cached

-----------

These are all from the first page results of a google search using the terms techdude obama birth certificate.

LWW
03-28-2011, 12:05 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I wonder why the state of Hawaii wouldn't object if there was a claim that one of their documents was fraudulent. I remember an official of that state, in a written statement, indicated that she saw the original documents and they established that The Moron was a natural born citizen. One is left to wonder why those original documents are not made public. </div></div>

Actually, Hawaii now denies that they have his birth records.

LWW
03-28-2011, 12:07 PM
Why are you posting dead links?

Tell the truth ... you just googled for something to dismiss the examination and linked to it without reading it. Or, at least that's my guess.

If you actually have something to look at, I will.

Sad that you won't ever pay someone else the same courtesy.

Soflasnapper
03-28-2011, 12:47 PM
No, I read one or more of these back at the time they were current, and found them convincing. The guy WAS 'analyzing' on-line JPEGs after all, which are not the best available evidence (with the known problems of JPEG artifacts), and such an analysis is mooted when the best available evidence is examined (the physical COLB), as was later done.

Didn't know Google included bad links in searches, but perhaps their cached pages will still be available, haven't checked.

Soflasnapper
03-28-2011, 01:10 PM
Yes, here's at least one (http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:O0sedhtGBlwJ:www.jonchristianryter. com/Two_Cents/2cworth.080726.html+techdude+obama+birth+certifica te&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a&source=www.google.com)

LWW
03-28-2011, 01:38 PM
WOW!

Just ...WOW!

To save anyone else the misery of reading this convoluted illogical apology for dear leader, let me break it down to it's two main points ... which collapse on the application of any type of critical examination whatsoever:

1 - The COLB posted on the DailyKook can't be considered a fake because the DailyKook NEVER SAID IT WAS REAL ... all they did was allow it to be spoon fed to them by the O-cult.

2 - The inspector was wasting their time comparing it to COLB's issued in the 2001-2008 era and should have been comparing it to those generated by typewriter in the early 1960's. I have posted an example ... and the DailyKook version isn't even remotely close to that.

Bottom line ... your "PROOF" dismisses the evidence because it desperately wants the COLB to be "PROOF" and nothing less will make them happy.

Sev
03-28-2011, 01:45 PM
HAHAHHAHA!!!

llotter
03-28-2011, 01:48 PM
Here is the statement of the Hawaiian official:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">"I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawai'i State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai'i State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai'i and is a natural-born American citizen," Fukino said in a statement. "I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008, over eight months ago." </div></div>

http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2009/Jul/28/ln/hawaii907280345.html

There seems to be a direct conflict in the current Governor's recent statement and that made by the former official back in July of 2009.

What do you suppose is going on?

Soflasnapper
03-28-2011, 04:32 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">WOW!

Just ...WOW!

To save anyone else the misery of reading this convoluted illogical apology for dear leader, let me break it down to it's two main points ... which collapse on the application of any type of critical examination whatsoever:

1 - The COLB posted on the DailyKook can't be considered a fake because the DailyKook NEVER SAID IT WAS REAL ... all they did was allow it to be spoon fed to them by the O-cult.

2 - The inspector was wasting their time comparing it to COLB's issued in the 2001-2008 era and should have been comparing it to those generated by typewriter in the early 1960's. I have posted an example ... and the DailyKook version isn't even remotely close to that.

Bottom line ... your "PROOF" dismisses the evidence because it desperately wants the COLB to be "PROOF" and nothing less will make them happy. </div></div>

Whatever. Crappy arguments may be made for actually true propositions, and damnably clever and seemingly conclusive arguments can be made for false propositions. I actually did not read these pushbacks I listed at the time, but they were the ones I found upon a quick search. Personally, I followed this matter through one Joe Cannon's site, cannonfire.com, at the time.

Maybe this is a more cogent argument (it's last in a series, and I'm still looking for the earlier archived versions).

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Sunday, August 31, 2008
The final Techdude post
I feel silly writing about so trivial a subject with yet another disaster poised to hit New Orleans. But a few readers have expressed an interest in the topic I'm about to address, and something tells me that I won't have another chance to deal with fluff for some time to come.

Most of you will recall the great Obama COLB (Certificate of Live Birth) controversy. The allegations became particularly wild when an alleged expert in digital forensics, code-named "Techdude," claimed to have discovered proof that the COLB ascribed to Barack Obama orignally belonged to his sister, Maya Sotero. By working his computer magic, Techdude was able to tease out stray pixels spelling Maya's name, which had been covered over by a piece of background pattern, cut and pasted into place.

Or so said the dude. Alas, his dramatic announcement -- which enchanted so many within PUMA-land -- had certain Big Problems:

1. He never provided a jpg proving the existence of the name "Maya." He gave us many other images, but not the important one.

2. No-one could replicate his work.

3. His "technical" explanations of what he did made no basic sense to anyone else versed in the ways of Photoshop.

4. His defenders kept pointing to his resume, as though that settled that. But the resume settled nothing, since no real-world name came attached to it.

5. The dude told a story of severe harassment (including dead rabbits!) that struck many as dubious. If the bad guys already knew his real name and location, why wouldn't he tell us?

6. His much-ballyhooed final report never showed up.

Techdude went into hiding shortly after it was learned that his resume exactly matched that of Adam Fink, who runs a firm called Collectech, a.k.a Missouri Forensics. An Obama supporter named Dr. Neal Krawetz -- a recognized expert in digital forensics -- accused Fink of being Techdude. Fink denied this identification during a phone conversation with Krawetz.

Was that denial a fib? Is Fink Techdude? Krawetz, I'm told, is still not sure. He seems to think that the imposture theory may yet hold water.

I'm quite sure, at this point, that Fink lied when he denied being Techdude. Adam Fink has used the email address Techdude@yahoo.com. Under that name, he provided webmaster services for an import company. Representatives of that company confirm that they dealt with Adam Fink (or so I am told by my correspondent, G). Texas Darlin', one of the dude's main online apostles, has pretty much admitted that she was dealing with Adam Fink.

Fink, I am told, won't talk to Krawetz any more. And he certainly won't talk to me. I've tried repeatedly to reach him.

Fink really is a member of at least one of the professional associations listed in his resume. This fact surprised me, since his writings struck me as amateurish.

For example, he said that his first step was to save the COLB jpg (available online) as a .png file in order to make sure that the image would not degrade further as he worked on it. But .png is a format designed for final output to the web. Anyone using Photoshop to work in layers would save an image as a .psd file, Photoshop's native non-lossy format, which supports layers. (Photoshop is the industry standard; I cannot imagine an expert using any other software.)

Why was the head of Missouri Forensics wrong about the image file format thingie? Ya got me!

Now we come to a more troubling question: Is Techdude/Fink the same person who writes under the name "Techdude" for the neo-Nazi website Stormfront? For present purposes, we will call the former AFTD and the latter SFTD.

AFTD has denied being SFTD -- but then again, Fink denied any kind of Techdudery in his dialogue with Krawetz, and I have just now shown the evidence indicating the contrary.

The writing styles of AFTD and SFTD are uncannily similar. They both use the same shorthand phrases and abbreviations. Word length, sentence length and vocabulary are all a good match.

Here we come to the most troubling aspect of our inquiry. In one post, AFTD used the spelling "G_D." This is characteristic of pious Jews. I've never seen a non-Jew use an underscore in place of the vowel.

(Side note: When did this practice start? Jews have avoided writing the tetragrammaton for centuries, but I don't recall seeing the G_D spelling until the late 1970s.)

The obvious question: If Fink is Jewish, would he write for a neo-Nazi website?

Oddly, the Stormfront Techdude has indicated that he himself may be Jewish. He has aroused some controversy on that site by his stated admiration for Jews. In his view, other races deserve to be treated as inferiors, but not Jews, who are just dandy. Needless to say, SFTD does not like Obama at all.

For these reasons, I began to suspect that the two Techdudes may indeed be one and the same.

Then a problem was brought to my attention.

In older posts, written long before this controversy flared up, SFTD revealed that he is a high school football coach in Virginia. The "Tech" part of his name comes from Virginia Tech. This biography cannot be reconciled with what we know of Adam Fink of Missouri.

Is it possible that the Stormfront Techdude created a false persona for himself? I suppose that someone posting to that site might not want to reveal the actual details of his life.

But the simplest explanation is usually the best. And the simple explanation is that Adam Fink is not the Techdude who posts to Stormfront. I do not believe that those two men are one and the same.

I do believe, however, that Fink is the Techdude who corresponded with Texas Darlin' and who made some silly assertions about the COLB.

The Great Techdude Challenge -- revealed! In an earlier post, I challenged our fine dude to discover the "hidden" text in an image I prepared. I covered the words -- a Shakespeare quote -- using the exact same technique that, in his imagination, was used to hide Maya's name. If the dude's computer magic could tease out that name, then surely it could tease out the words of William Shakespeare.

(Think about it: Why not?)

In my initial post, I gave two clues: I said that the quote was obscure, and that it was the meanest line Shakespeare ever wrote. Later, I gave this clue: "Twain - Tchaikovsky - Shaw - Voltaire - Brecht - Bresson."

All of those artists, as one of my well-read readers noted, created works about Joan of Arc. (I'm a Johannaphile from way back.) Thus, the play is Henry VI: Part 1, because that's the one in which Joan shows up. I'm afraid that young Shakespeare treats her unfairly; the French/English rivalry was still going strong in his day.

The hidden quote is this:

Strumpet, thy words condemn thy brat and thee

These words are said to Joan by the Duke of York in Act 5, Scene 4. By this point in the story, she has been taken prisoner. Her captors ready her for burning. She tries to escape her fate by claiming to be with child. York wants to fry her anyways.

(That is not how it happened in real life, by the way.)

Shakespeare wrote many cruel lines. But I know of none crueler than this one: He obviously meant the audience to applaud as a a pregnant woman was tossed to the pyre.
Permalink
posted: 3:16 AM </div></div>

Soflasnapper
03-28-2011, 04:45 PM
One of his earlier posts:

All Cannonfire.com's Techdude mention posts listed HERE (including this one) (http://cannonfire.blogspot.com/search?q=Techdude)

(The originals at the link have the images he's discussing)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Tuesday, August 05, 2008
The truth about the "fake" birth certificate
Many of you probably know that I spent too much of last night (while simultaneously trying to make a morning deadline on a for-pay project) arguing with the acolytes of one Techdude over on No Quarter.

The Dude is, we are told, a courtroom-quality expert in computer imaging. Although I don't know the man's name, I'll take his claimed resume at face value -- for now. (His followers are very quick to wave that resume in your face if you dare to question the Dude.) The Dude still insists that Barack Obama's Certificate of Live Birth -- the dreaded COLB -- is a fake.

His latest argument, here, comes down to this: He says that a forger created the Obama COLB by changing an original which belonged to someone else.

That's possible. In a sense, that was the tactic I used when I created the Wailing Wall "PS" note seen here. I enlarged a copy of the original note, used cloned background material to erase Obama's pious words, then overlaid my own (bad) attempt to mimic Obama's handwriting onto the "blank" surface. The results are sloppy, but so what? The intent was humor, not deception.

Techdude believes that something similar occurred in the case of the COLB. The Dude argues, based on the evidence of another Hawaiian COLB of known provenance, that the original text was once in a slightly different position.

Moreover, he thinks that the original text can be recaptured, much as one can use special techniques to read a palimpsest. He believes that he has done this very trick. He avers that he has found the word "FEMALE" where the sex should be listed. (In other words, the forger worked from a female's COLB.)

He also says that he knows the original name on the COLB -- and that this name is both familiar and surprising. He decided to hold it back for a bit in order to give the guilty parties time to confess.

Which means that, during that time, others should be able to replicate his work. That's what I tried to do. Unfortunately, Techdude's "simple" instructions are anything but.

He begins his piece by implying that his techniques require no special expertise. Even a child can do it:

That being said, it never ceases to amaze me how some people will always just refuse to see the facts when they are placed in front of them. Perhaps they have just been blinded by their own creative interpretations of what they want to see but I will simply put my money on them just being really stupid

Since a lot of people want to try some of these techniques at home all they would need is a copy of the full uncropped KOS image and a copy of Michelle’s 2008 COLB. Both of which are freely available on this site or on sites linked to from this site.

Well. Any man who talks in that fashion should be able to present a replicable procedure. He's not saying: "Trust me, I'm an expert." He's saying: "Hey, kids, go ahead and try this trick at home. If you can't do it, you're an idiot."

What, precisely, is he doing?

I've read his text closely, and I'm still not sure. I ask you: Do these sound like the kind of instructions a tech guy would give you?

First, change the overall hue value to red.

A-HEM. Which program are we using? The Dude, it seems, is too cool to divulge such information. I'll use Photoshop, the industry standard. (CS2. I never got used to CS3.) Which tool are we using? Which way are we pushing the slider bars? What percentage?

Most of you will consider this point inconsequential, but "hue" and "value" are two very different properties of color. The two words should not be pushed together in this fashion.

(All color has three properties: Hue, value and chroma. Next time an English major in a museum starts spouting pretentious nonsense about art, ask him to name the three properties of color -- and then ask him if someone should talk about literature if he doesn't know the difference between a noun and a verb. This is one of my favorite tricks.)

Okay, back to our story.

Next, adjust the contrast a bit until you can see all of the light colored pixels appear from the majority of the “white space”. They should appear as slightly off white with a tinge of red or yellow.

"Adjust the contrast a bit"? Not a very precise instruction. I used the contrast slider in Photoshop, and could get no results like the ones that the Dude displays. (You have to adjust brightness as well, methinks.)

At first, I didn't know what to make of the phrase "all of the light colored pixels appear from the majority of the “white space.”" He probably means that one should adjust brightness and contrast until one has squeezed out all possible latent information in those pixels which may appear white to the naked eye.

Okay, fine. That makes sense to me. But I'd still prefer some exact numbers.

After adjusting the so-called "hue values" and fiddling with the contrast (and brightness), the Dude gives us a document like unto this (click on it for enlargement):

Uhh...Dude? The text is red. In the original, it's black. And the background pattern is amber, not red. (It was green in the original.) No matter how you adjust the hue slider in Photoshop, you won't transform black into red.

In my book, the easiest way to transform black into red would be to overlay a layer of red and then set that layer to "lighten." But the Dude doesn't say we should do that. Nor does he explain why he did it. This scientist must believe in ESP, because he expects us to read his mind.

Are you wondering about all those boxes and numbers? The boxes and grey lettering indicate the areas where the text exists on an overlay of the reference COLB -- the one with the known provenance. The Dude uses this as a guide to tell him where the original text was.

(Which brings up an interesting question. Why would a forger not place his new text in the exact same locations as the old text? Doing so would be easy. You set a copy of the original as a top layer, set that layer to "multiply," then put the opacity at 10% or so. Instant guidelines.)

So: How, exactly, does the Dude think that we can extract the ghostly images of the original letters? Again, he is maddeningly unclear.

My guess is that his guess is that the presumed forger took a rectangular chunk of the background pattern, laid it over the text he wanted to cover up, then set that layer to "lighten." The black letters would disappear. (That's one way to do the job, although it's not the way I would have chosen.) But anti-aliasing means that small greyish pixels might surround the hole left by the vanished letters.

(Anti-aliasing is how computers smooth over the "jaggies" in text. See here.)

As I see it, we would get a workable number of those anti-aliasing pixels only if the background pattern were of a value closer to medium dark. (This is the proper use of the term "value.") The green background pattern is quite light.

Nevertheless, our fine Dude insists that -- after punching up the latent information in the white areas -- he is able to make those vanished letters re-appear. That is how he was able to determine that the original sex (in field 33, above) was FEMALE. Like so:

You may have noticed that we have a problem here. Techdude gives us a picture with nice, thick black letters: FEMALE. Obviously, this is not what cropped up when he played with the contrast slider.

That black FEMALE is not a latent image; it's an overlay. Those are the letters he thinks should be there.

Why doesn't he show what's really there? Why don't we see the actual results of his image manipulation? Techdude never gives us that image. Frankly, I find his reticence to show his results troubling -- so troubling, perhaps, as to call into question his integrity.

Now, I have tried to replicate his manipulations. I've done everything I can think of to squeeze information out of the same section of the COLB. Yes, I used the largest version of the COLB available. In the example below, I've tried my best to adjust color, brightness and contrast to match what the Dude has given unto us.

I tried to replicate what Techdude did in order see what can be seen sans overlays.

Here's my method: I used Photoshop. I reddened the black letters as described above. I then placed Techdude's "FEMALE" image (above) over my work as a guide. (Fortunately, he gave it at 100%) Then I adjusted the hue and brightness to match his results.

After much experimentation, I got my version of the COLB as close as possible to his by sliding the master hue control over to the -40 mark, then adjusting contrast +36 and brightness -45.

(See, Techdude? That's how you explain your work. Nice and clear. In this case, a child really could do it -- because I've explained how to do it.)

And here are the results. (For a larger, clearer picture, click on the image.)

Do you see the word FEMALE anywhere in there?

I don't.

Neither No Quarter nor Texas Darlin's site have dared to publish the actual results. I wonder why?

Sure, you can point to various pixel anomalies, but they exist throughout the image. The certainly do not add up to legible lettering.

You can also see pictures in clouds, in a textured ceiling or in a stucco wall. To quote the divine Groucho: "Oh, how you can get stucco."

I think that the people who are blindly applauding Techdude's work without replicating it are very much in danger of getting stucco.

Now, if anyone out there can come up with another technique which will bring out legible letters, then I will publish your work. That's a promise. You can't ask for fairer than that, can you?

Let's turn to the area where the name supposedly appears on the original birth certificate. This would be the signified by boxes 22 and 23 in Techdude's example. Today, we have the announcement that the name is that of Barack Obama's sister, Maya Kassandra Soetoro.

Look at the page giving this announcement. Do you see an explanation as to how the name was derived? No. Do you see an image? No.

We may get an image tomorrow -- but I'll betcha dollars to donuts that Techdude will give us an image with an overlay, telling us what we are supposed to see. The power of suggestion will do the rest of the work, for those committed to a predetermined outcome.

At any rate, here is what I was able to come up with.

Oh Maaaaaayaaaaa....! Where are you, Maya? (Again, click on the image for better quality.)

I suppose if you have a bad case of the "wanna believe its," you can scry her name in that urine-colored morass. And if you listen carefully to white noise, you may be able to hear Renata Tebaldi sing Carmen.

Some have claimed to have had success by overlaying 9 pt letters and fitting them over various parts of the image. It is said that "pixel anomalies" line up with the letters. This sort of procedure is unscientific and invites suggestibility.

Hamlet. Do you see yonder cloud that's almost in shape of a camel?

Polonius. By th' mass, and 'tis like a camel indeed.

Hamlet. Methinks it is like a weasel.

Polonius. It is back'd like a weasel.

Hamlet. Or like a whale.

Polonius. Very like a whale.

Again, I am perfectly willing to post your results if you can somehow squeeze legible letters out of all those ochre and greyish squares. My only request is that you accomplish this goal without overlays. If you use overlays, you will never persuade a skeptic.

In this case, I'll be overjoyed to eat crow if I have to. But I don't think I'll have to.

And what about Techdude's much ballyhooed "expert" status?

Hugh Trevor-Roper was one of the world's foremost authorities on Adolf Hitler, yet he screwed up royally when he vouched for the authenticity of the Hitler diaries. Dr. Bruce Maccabee had impeccable credentials as a photo-analyst for the Navy, yet he "verified" the Gulf Breeze UFO photographs, now known to be fakes.

I respect expertise as much as anyone else does. But science is a matter of replicable experiment. Reality is not determined by resumes.
</div></div>

LWW
03-29-2011, 03:10 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I actually did not read these pushbacks I listed at the time, but they were the ones I found upon a quick search.</div></div>

So ... you didn't read them, but you post them as "PROOF" because they back the statements of dear leader and the regime.

With that as an acceptable standard of evidence, I now understand why you believe in Nusberger.

Soflasnapper
03-30-2011, 09:46 AM
No, I didn't know how to get the archives at Cannonfire.com until I went back and figured it out.

His take is all that I read at the time, and the analysis upon which I relied for my understanding that Techdude had been exposed and proven wrong.

Which he has. Which is why we don't hear about him anymore (you're scraping the bottom of the barrel in a desperate effort to claim there is some evidence that stands up). He promised the definitive reply to his critics, including proof, but then has slinked back into the shadows of silence.

Temporarily lacking my original sources, I pulled up a quick search, which if nothing else, showed a lot of pushback to his claims existed. Some was either incorrect or unconvincing, which doesn't mean correct and convincing criticism didn't exist. Which I have now found and put into this thread.

And which you have offered nothing to dispute, now resorting to a meta-criticism of my standards of evidence, which is not the question here.

LWW
03-30-2011, 04:03 PM
Dude ... it was your "PROOF" so didn't get pizzed at me because I read it and you didn't.

Soflasnapper
03-30-2011, 04:09 PM
So, now that I gave you the sources I originally relied on, you are silent on the arguments and evidence it provides.

Better to focus on what was hastily presented? I understand.

LWW
03-31-2011, 03:12 AM
Au contraire:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">WOW!

Just ...WOW!

To save anyone else the misery of reading this convoluted illogical apology for dear leader, let me break it down to it's two main points ... which collapse on the application of any type of critical examination whatsoever:

1 - The COLB posted on the DailyKook can't be considered a fake because the DailyKook NEVER SAID IT WAS REAL ... all they did was allow it to be spoon fed to them by the O-cult.

2 - The inspector was wasting their time comparing it to COLB's issued in the 2001-2008 era and should have been comparing it to those generated by typewriter in the early 1960's. I have posted an example ... and the DailyKook version isn't even remotely close to that.

Bottom line ... your "PROOF" dismisses the evidence because it desperately wants the COLB to be "PROOF" and nothing less will make them happy. </div></div>

Qtec
03-31-2011, 04:26 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">1 - The COLB posted on the DailyKook <u>can't be considered a fake </u>because the DailyKook<u> NEVER SAID IT WAS REAL .</u> </div></div>


You call that logic!

LOL


Q

LWW
03-31-2011, 04:36 AM
Not at all ... that's why I called his "PROOF" a "convoluted illogical apology for dear leader."

LWW &lt;---Struggling to teach those who refuse to learn.

Qtec
03-31-2011, 04:41 AM
1. you have proved absolutely nothing.



Q...........

Soflasnapper
03-31-2011, 11:46 AM
That was your response to one link from my hastily assembled google search on the topic, not my actual source of Cannonfire, which you seem to have missed back some pages where I cited two discussions at length and linked to a page of all his posts on the subject.

As he says, and as I have mentioned without any denial, Techdude promised to 'show his work' and provide a definitive proof, YEARS AGO, and has never been heard of since. His take is discredited by his own failed promise to answer his critics, and his apparently forged or copied curriculum vitae.

LWW
03-31-2011, 04:04 PM
Dude ... you posted it as "TRUTH" without reading it, not I.

Some days I think you are a cut above the cabal ... others I think you are pledging with them.

Soflasnapper
04-01-2011, 09:57 AM
While I've admitted that, you continue to harp on it as a reason to ignore my link and citation of better evidence.

I get it. Can't deal with the better argument, so harp on the first failed attempt.

Good strategy, for 2nd graders. Who do you now suppose you're fooling with this dodge?

LWW
04-01-2011, 11:41 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Can't deal with the better argument </div></div>

When you offer a better argument I'll consider it.

What you have done is offer a second argument from someone who insists that it can't be true because they will it to not be true.

The artifacts are clearly visible in the link I provided. Anyone with basic Photochop skills ... which your "ARGUMENT" confesses they do not possess ... can spot artifacts in a doctored photo/documents.

My skills are admittedly insufficient to be able to extract the wording in the artifacts ... which is irrelevant.

If the document has been digitally altered, which it blatantly has been, then it is a fraud. End of discussion.

Soflasnapper
04-01-2011, 12:01 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Can't deal with the better argument </div></div>

When you offer a better argument I'll consider it.

What you have done is offer a second argument from someone who insists that it can't be true because they will it to not be true.

The artifacts are clearly visible in the link I provided. Anyone with basic Photochop skills ... which your "ARGUMENT" confesses they do not possess ... can spot artifacts in a doctored photo/documents.

My skills are admittedly insufficient to be able to extract the wording in the artifacts ... which is irrelevant.

If the document has been digitally altered, which it blatantly has been, then it is a fraud. End of discussion. </div></div>

Your 'expert's' claims are explosive, if true.

Who NOW maintains they are accurate? Does Atlas Shrugged still push this guy, or have they quit, after the guy failed to do what he promised, and has quit the field of discussion like the fraudulent coward he appears to have proven himself to be?

Pam Geller is a piece of work, so I guess her hysterically mendacious site MIGHT still maintain these are real claims. Does she? Does anyone else?

Since birtherism is still alive and well, why WOULDN'T those proponents still hold out this guy's allegations as a primary proof of what they claim (and isn't it true that they no longer do)?

LWW
04-02-2011, 02:29 AM
And your argument is still that you don't believe it because you don't want to believe it.

Soflasnapper
04-04-2011, 08:50 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And your argument is still that you don't believe it because you don't want to believe it. </div></div>

I find it inexplicable how the NEWSPAPERS picked it up FROM THE HOSPITAL to publish it in their normal 14 day coverage of the vital statistics, if no such hospital records of the birth existed at the time.

Accordingly, all claims to the contrary are automatically suspect and need a high standard of evidentiary proof.

This guy's method is non-standard, and his results, unreplicated. He (presumably, with that handle) PROMISED to set all the skeptics straight, and then disappeared from view, never to post again, let alone to offer his promised proof.

This is not strong evidence of anything except that he is most certainly wrong.

LWW
04-05-2011, 03:26 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I find it inexplicable how the NEWSPAPERS picked it up FROM THE HOSPITAL to publish it in their normal 14 day coverage of the vital statistics, if no such hospital records of the birth existed at the time.</div></div>

That's easy.

They didn't.

Birth announcements and obituaries are paid for by families.

Every year there is something in the news about someone running a fake obit for someone still alive as a gag.

Nobody is claiming Obama wasn't born BTW.

Now that you mention it ... why didn't the announcement list the hospital? Why has the regime provided 2 different hospitals as the place of birth?